Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains a transcript of Jimmy Carter's speech before Ralph Nader's consumer group.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1554420
label
Second Debate: Carter Statements on Defense Issues
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1554420
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Second Debate: Carter Statements on Defense Issues
description
This file contains a transcript of Jimmy Carter's speech before Ralph Nader's consumer group.
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Ford - Carter Debates Files
subjects
Campaign debates
Consumption (Economics)
Nuclear energy
Presidential campaign, 1976
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1554420
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-09-30
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-11-01
month
11
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f731986a1fb779d0
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Second Debate: Carter Statements on
Defense Issues" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford
Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 2 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JACK MARCH Just
In examining the transcript of Carter statements before
the Nader Consumer Group, it appears he has a very broad
grasp, in both a general and technical sense, of nuclear
questions. This undoubtedly stems from his Navy career.
He appears to be both confident and persuasive in his
response. In fact, it was the most complete response he
made in this interview. He may be wrong in his view, never-
theless it sounds like he is very familiar with the subject.
I mention this so that the treatment of this particular sub-
ject in the debates can be given careful consideration.
cc: Dick Cheney
Mike Duval
Senator Magnuson's committee, slowed in the past seven years by the reality of the
probability of a White llouse veto, the Committee has a reservoir of effective
suggestions to redress the imbalances of power between consumers and corporations.
We applaud the example set by these individuals and others like them in the aúdience
and across the country; we celebrate this kind of citizenship. (sustained applause)
In January of this year, at the Consumer's Federation of America's convention,
Mr. Jimmy Carter said, "I would like to be known as the foremost protector of
consumers." This standard that he has set for himself has far-reaching significance
sys
because, on thought, I think we must all admit that the ultimate test of our economic
is the economic health, safety and well being of consumers today and in future
generations. And it is the consumer's interest, whether in housing or in food or
in other major areas affecting his or her life, that must be the touchstone and
in the forefront of public policy-making. Please welcome Mr. Carter. (sustained
applause)
BALO FORD CIERANT
CARTER:
Thank you. First of all let me say that I am very pleased and broud to be
here, to be sitting at the head table with such a distinguished group of courageous
and effective Americans is an honor in itself. An accumulated talent, an ability
and sensitivity and commitment of those who have just been introduced is, indeed,
inspiration to us all. The only one about whom I have any concern is our host,
Ralph Nader. (laughter) I was talking to Jack Brooks a few minutes ago and when
Ralph's people went out to the audience to collect the question cards, Jack Brooks
said, "I'm sure, knowing Nader, that he is taking up a collection.' (laughter)
I said, "He is way ahead of that- he takes up a collection before you get in the
house; he doesn't wait until after you get in." (laughter) I made the mistake of
inviting Mr. Nader down to Plains (laughter) this past weekend. I really wanted
to make an impression on him because I have admired him so long and in order to do
SO I took him out to the Plains softball field and I was very pleased when Radph
and I got out of the car that all the tourists who now fill our tiny town rushed
-6-
forward with their autograph books. I turned to get my pen (laughter) out of
my pocket. I then turned around to see all the tourists gathered around Mr.
Nader instead of me. He brought me, also, some bad luck. I have a 7-0 record
as a pitcher on the softball team on which I play. I lost my first game. In
the midst of the game, my brother's gas station exploded (laughter); I wound
up with two charley horses--one on each leg and his performance as an umpire!
(laughter) I'd rather not comment on it. (laughter) He said that he was
fair because both sides said he was lousy (laughter) and I can't disagree with
that. (applause)
I hope that this forum is not one of a series of catastrophes he has brought
on me so far. (laughter) I think that this is an unprecedented thing for the
nominee of one of our parties to appear in a no-holds-barred talk-interchange
of ideas and questioning with the leading consumer advocate of our country.
But I come here as one who has spent the last 20 months travelling throughout
our nation to try to seek votes, and I have been successful in that--to try
to learn. When I began my campaign, as you perhaps know, I didn't have a
built-in organization. I was not well known. I didn't have much money; only
a small staff. I didn't have command of the news media as I would have here
in Washington or I would, perhaps, in New York. But my wife and I, and many
others, went from one living room to another; one union hall to another; one
high school auditorium to another. Sometimes only three or four people would
come, but I would make about a 10-minute speech and answer questions for 45
minutes or so, and I began to form a relationship with individual voters that
paid rich dividends as the campaign progressed. And I learned in the process.
A lot of news media representatives and sociologists and politcal science
professors have asked: "Are you a liberal or a conservative?" I never have
tried to answer the question. In some areas I would be quite liberal: in
consumer protection, environmental quality, human rights and civil rights.
-7-
In other areas I would be quite conservative: tight management of government,
careful planning, strengthening of local government, good openness of govern-
ment, One way to categorize my beliefs would be popularism, if you would let
me define the word--and I would almost equate it with consumerism. I have been
deeply hurt, as have many other Americans in the last few years, with the deter-
iorationand the quality of our governmental processes. They have been demonstrated
in many minor ways, but in a few major ways: the Vietnamese and Cambodian wars;
the attempt to become involved in Angola; the CIA revelations; the Watergate
scandals. There has been a deep sense of alienation of people from our govern-
ment and a sense of disappointment, a sense of embarrassment--sometimeseven a
sense of shame. These feelings, perhaps, are justified and legitimate but there
is a reservoir of deep commitment that exists in the minds and hearts of the
American people that is waiting to be tapped. I have always felt that, to the
extent that government in all its forms can equal the character of the American
people--to that extent, our wrongs can be redressed, our mistakes can be corrected,
the difficult answers can, perhaps, be given to difficult questions and there can
be a restoration of confidence of people in government.
The government must be well-organized, simple, efficient--so that the
average person can understand what goes on there. So that there can be some
access to the person or persons within government who can meet the need or
receive a complaint or to discuss it, perhaps, as a legitimate public criticism
or attack. We now have a bureaucratic structure in the Federal government and
many state governments but--because of its complexity--it is almost impervious
to the entering of a human being into the decision-making process. That needs to be
changed, In many instances, when agencies or departments become obsolescent or
obsolete, their usefulness having been performed, then they can try ways to wrap
themselves in secrecy when a new, vigorous, badly-needed function of government
is originally instituted--there is a strong national motivation to let people
-8-
sources of legitimate prying and surfacing of ways of letting people know
what goes on in my department. But once a department serves its function,
there is a strong inclination towards self-perpetuation and for the enshrin-
ing of that agency in secrecy. This occurs too often and we need to pursue
the legislation of which Jack Brook's dpartment opens up to deliberations of
our government--not only in the Executive branch but, hopefully, in the Congress
as well. The public access to public scrutiny, to public knowledge, to public
involvement--to perhaps even public control for a change.
We must have, also, the involvement of citizens in the preparation of
decisions. The budgeting process should be open; revision of major legis-
lation should be open, and there should always be a sense of what government
does is for the best interests of those who have no powerful lobbying group;
who have no direct access to those who have power in the White House or other-
wise, and who quite often have no intense interest because they lack under-
standing. When the regulatory agencies were being established about 40 years
ago, when Franlin Roosevelt was President, he said--an almost humorous remark
now "Regulatory agencies will, indeed, be tribunes for the people. " They have
not turned out that way. Because no matter what the hopes have been, the reg-
ulatory agencies were first formed to protect the consumer alone against the
encroachment of a selfish interest. Quite often the average consumer, the
average citizen, has no awareness of the procedures, never sees the issues
clearly defined and--because of that--has a notable absence of interest. And,
almost by default, there becomes evolved a "sweetheart arrangement" between the
regulatory agencies themselves and those in industry who are being regulated.
Many Presidents have perpetuated that deterioration by appointments to regulatory
agencies- there has been kind of "revolving deor" between the industry being
regulated and the regulatory agency itself. I would like to stop that if I am
elected President.
First of all, I would like to see Congress pass a law that would make it
illegal for the movement of members of regulatory agencies back into the industry
from which they have come to the present administration. In the last eight years
over half the appointments to the nine most important regulatory agencies have
come from the industries being regulated. And, of course, quite often they don't
serve the whole term because of the free movement back into the industry from
the regulatory agency itself. If it is impossible to pass such a law, then
through Executive Order and through a firm commitment from those whom I am
considering for appointment, I'll prevent that continuous ingress and egress
between those two entities in our society. We also need to have within the
government structure itself a competent group who can speak for consumers. Sen-
ator Magnus on and Congressman Brooks have, thus far, been successful in getting
this legislation passed--Consumer Protection Agency or Consumer Agency for
Advocacy.
I am strongly opposed to the proliferation of new agencies, departments,
bureaus, boards and commissions because it adds on to an already confused Fed-
eral bureaucratic structure. But this agency, in my opinion, is different. If
I am elected President, I would look on this group (a very small group, by the
way) to help me probe constantly, to discover agencies or functions which ought
to be eliminated. To publicly reveal inadequacies, inaccuracies that exist within
the people's own government. I believe that every year because of the process
of screening out obsolescent aspects of our government, the Agency would more than
pay for itself. There would also be a very low cost--I think ten, eleven,
twelve million dollars per year. This is about the amount of money that HEW
spends every hour. So I strongly favor this legislation. I hope the confer-
ence committee will pass it quickly; that it will be adopted. I hope that Pres-
ident Ford will sign it into law. If he should veto it, I hope that Congress will
override his veto. If the veto should be sustained, I will continue to make it
-10-
a major issue in the campaign this fall. If I am elected President, I hope it
will be one of the first bills passed during the next administration. (loud
applause)
There has to be another means for citizen involvement in our government.
The President is the major spokesman of our country. Access to the President
from groups represented here today is crucial. Too often in the past the White
House is surrounded by an impervious obstacle which is open to those who are
powerful and influential, but was not open to those who spoke for the average
citizen. That ought to be changed and it will be changed if I should be
FORD
elected President. At the same time we ought to pursue an idea that Georgia
initiated while I was Governor, called "tie line. " We set up an in-watch
LIBRARY
line when anyone in our state at this moment, if they have a problem or a
need, or a question or a criticism can call without cost on a nearby telephone
(perhaps their own, if they have one) to one number, which is highly pub-
licized through welfare checks, public advertisers on radio and television
and ask his question and--while they hold onto the phone--without delay the
answer will be provided. If one's welfare check or social security check
doesn't arrive, while the person holds the phone (perhaps an illiterate person)
they are connected automatically to their own Congressman's office in Washington
to give their expression of concern and, perhaps, to receive attention. If they
go into a local grocery store to buy a chicken and they pay for 3 pounds of
chicken and, when they get home, they find it weighs 2½ pounds-they can call
the same number and say they got cheated in their local grocery store. And,
while they hold onto the phone, they can be connected to the person in the
Agriculture Department who is responsible for the accuracy of grocery stores
scales, and so forth. I think we now have over 26,000 categories of complaints
on microfilm and we keep a record of complaints in addition to answering
questions of that kind. A similar occurrence could very well be instituted
-11-
find the source of an answer to a question. (applause & laughter)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
In closing, let me say this: I don't claim to know all the answers
Many of you in the audience are experts in the field of special interest to
to
you. One of the reasons I came here was not/teach, or even to promise, but
to learn. A lot of legislation has already been passed to help those who look
to you for leadership and perhaps because of your own instigation. As that
legislation has been passed, quite often it has not received the support and
adequate
financing from our executive leaders in the White House. Another point
I would like to make in closing is this: Next year perhaps there is going to be
a different climate in this country. Can you imagine the change that is going
to take place in matters that are of great concern to you when the President and
Congress work in harmony, with mutual respect, in close consultation--supporting
one another in the open? And when we have a natural inclination to be supportive
of suggestions which help the consumers of this country? That in itself can be
a tremendous step forward, even if we never pass another consumer protection or
advocacy bill. Of course we'll pass them, but think for a moment in the field of
poisonous materials, safety, transportatin, energy, taxation, access to govern-
ment, environmental quality and many others
If you felt there was a receptive
ear to your problems, to your suggestions and to your criticisms in the White
House
This is not a partisan speech but I would like to point out that in
the last 24 years we have only had Democrats in the White House for eight years.
I think, in general (and there are, obviously, some exceptions) our Party has
stood for a close relationship to the voters themselves--with an emphasis on
individual citizens and a minimal emphasis on powerful intermediaries, which
has quite often been an obstacle to close and regular access between citizens
and the government. But that's going to change and I think it will be a good
change. As Ralph Nader pointed out when I spoke to the Citizens Forum a few
months ago, I hope to challenge him in the future for the title of the top
(Sustaine
-12-
NADER: Thank you, Mr. Carter for those remarks and sensitivities. We now turn to
the panel of six reporters, who will ask questions and, possibly, follow up inquiries
to their questions. The panel is composed of Morton Mintz of THE WASHINGTON POST;
Eileen Shanahan of the NEW YORK TIMES; Les Whitten of LES WHITTEN AND JACK ANDERSON
(columnists) (laughter); Steve Aug of THE WASHINGTON STAR; Mike Conlan of UPI, and
Karen Elliott of the WALL STREET JOURNAL. We will start with Mr. Mintz.
MINTZ: Governor, you referred a moment ago to the last few Democratic administrations;
it was during their tenure that a tidal wave of mergers occurred. That tidal wave
really strengthened the power of giant corporations over the economy. Those
administrations that were in power did nothing, and the fact is that Mr. Nixon's
administration was trying to break the tidal wave. The Anti-trust Commission warns
now that we are on the brink of a new wave of mergers, and I would like to ask if
you are aware of Senator Hart's proposal to try to head it off by giving the
Justice Department authority to get an injunction against the mergers that are, in
fact, suspected to be illegal, reporting on that resolution and, then, letting you
have a position on that proposal?
CARTER: I do favor the right of the Attorney General to obtain pre-merger injunction
and recognize that, during both Republican and Democratic administrations in the
past, there have been derogations of consumer rights. I can't claim, obviously,
that all the fault lies with one party or the other. But there has been a growing
awareness, as you know, in the last eight years because of actions of those
assembled at this head table and others, and I think that the response will be
different in the future -- certainly, if I am successful in November. So I do
favor the legislation.
MINTZ: Thank you. I have no follow up.
NADER: If you will just continue in the order designated. Miss Shanahan?
SHANAHAN: Governor, you have said that it's going to take a whole year to work out your
tax reform program,
CARTER: Yes.
(Tape garbled here, following Mr. Carter's interjection)
SHANAHAN: If those are the circumstances, why do you think you can succeed in tax reform
where other Presidents of both parties have failed?
CARTER: If I can complete my own analysis, of the tax revision, within a shorter period
of time, I would certainly proceed aggressively -- I would like to be cautious in
what I promised since the present tax code comprises roughly 40,000 pages. I
believe that it would take approximately a year before a final and comprehensive
proposal can be made to the Congress. The thing that concerns me about tax reform
is this: When it is done piecemeal, one portion at a time, it's almost impossible
to correct the basic defects or inequities in the tax laws themselves. And those
special interest groups--some quite benevolent--who are thoroughly aware of an
advantage to be derived from one particular part of the tax code can focus their
attention and their influence with Congressional members very acutely on that one
particular aspect of the tax code. The average consumer or voter in this country
who can exert tremendous pressure on members of Congress and the President, if they
are educated, have no way, for instance, under the present tax reform bill now in
Congress, have no way of understanding exactly what is going on. I don't think
we're going to be successful in providing a substantial increase in equity by trying
to amend the present tax code -- paragraph by paragraph. I think it is going to
have to be, first of all, comprehensive; it is going to have to be generic in
nature; to basically start from scratch and prepare a comprehensive proposal at
once. A great effort to simplify; the removal of vast numbers of the special
privileges that have, in the past, been put into the tax code (and are still there);
an emphasis on equity and an emphasis on simplicity; a guarantee that there will be
a truly progressive tax rate for those who make a higher income, so that those
people can pay a higher percent of their income in taxes, and so forth. So
because of the comprehensive commitment, that is why and where the delay might be.
However, I'll proceed as expeditiously as I can. I'll emphasize one other point:
This has never been attempted, in my memory where the full resources and
influence of the White House and the President have been put behind a comprehensive
assessment of what we have and what we ought to have. If I can present to the
American people and the Congress, with full participation by the Congressional
leaders by the way, during that process -- a tax proposal that is simpler; is
fairer; is comprehensive; and guarantees more equity of treatment, then, I
believe
we have an excellent chance of passing it. I am determined to do it and I consider
it on my word of honor at stake; it's not a lightly made commitment -- and I
consider we have an excellent chance to succeed.
SHANAHAN: The other day, Governor, you apparently received a phone call from Senator
Long which he had discussed (here a cough garbles the tape) publicly on the subject
of tax reform. And, as he recounted the conversation, he made it sound as if you
had made a commitment to be extremely careful about doing anything that might
possibly hurt business investments. Is that an accurate, correct reflection of
what you said to him in the context of perhaps lighter taxes on Capitol Hill?
CARTER: No, we didn't discuss that at all. There was nothing in the conversation at all
that referred to business investments or tax credits or anything else.
WHITTEN: Governor, first off before I ask my question, I'd like to know what kind of
toothpaste you use? (laughter)
CARTER: If that's your only question, I'll answer it. (laughter)
WHITTEN: As a matter of fact, I just happen to have one about the oil industry
(laughter) Do you feel, Governor, that "big oil" should be broken up, ONE: to
divorce it from its control of other energy sources?
CARTER: Yes.
WHITTEN: And/or TWO: Into separate companies for the oil fields themselves, that
is: pipelines, the refineries, the distributors, the retail outlets and so on.
And, if you do feel on either hand that it should be done, do you plan to make
sure through your appointments to the FTC, the FPC, the FEA and anti-trust
this can be carried out in any way?
-15-
CARTER: I have been careful about what I said about this subject; not be-
cause of any political consequences (because its a very popular thing to be
for total divestiture) but because I want to be sure that what I do is right
and best for the consumers ultimately. I don't favor total divestiture, as
a commitment ofmy own. I do favor divestiture in two areas: One is the
wholesale and retail distribution level of fuel and in horizontal invest-
ments. Unless I am convinced that there is some alternative way to
provide intense and adequate competition, the aspect of the influence of
oil companies that I, about which I feel most concerned, is the horizontal
investment into the coal fields, geothermal supplies and uranium. And
that is my basic concern. If I am not convinced, and I have told the oil
industry representatives the same thing, that there is an adequate amount
of competition ( which there is not now, by the way) then I would favor
divestiture in these two areas,
WHITTEN: To tie this in very hard on that
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
CARTER: Please?
WHITTEN: You say, " that there is not now " you said very distinctly?
CARTER: That's correct.
WHITTEN: What steps would you take, if you become President, to reverse
that situation?
CARTER: Well, I think that, in the past, there has been an inclination on
the part of the oil companies' investments in the coal industry to reduce
the supplies of coal. To artificially raise the price of coal above and
beyond the rate that would ordinarily accrue because of production costs
increases and so forth. In my opinion, that is a violation of, perhaps,
-16-
anti-trust laws and I feel that perhaps the strengthening of anti-trust
laws or the enforcement of those presently on the books can correct that
situation. That would be an option. But I believe now that there is a
need for corrective action.
WHITTEN: Now--about the toothpaste
(laughter)
CARTER: You've lost your chance at the toothpaste question. (laughter)
AUG: Mr. Carter, the Ford administration--as you are probably aware--has
sought to ease the amount of Federal control of airlines, trucks and
railroads
CARTER: Yes.
AUG: In the belief that it would help consumers by lowering prices, I
wonder what your view on this is? Would you, for example, specially pad-
lock the doors on the ICC, CAB? How do you feel about regulating our
transportation--should it be thrown open to the competitive marketplace?
CARTER: Well, as has been pointed out many times, there are two aspects
of regulation. I think one aspect of regulation is very vital to the
consumer. That is the regulation of things of which the consumer cannot
adequately assess for oneself: hidden chemicals in food, the amount of
damage that might be done to the environment, and so forth. On the other
hand, economic regulation which permits, in many instances, an unwarranted
increase in the price of products to consumers ought to be drastically
minimized. Whether they would padlocked, I can't commit myself to that
drastic a commitment--but in my own appointments to the regulatory
agencies that are involved in economics, I would try to enhance the degree
of competition that presently exists and lower the prices that are paid
by consumers. One obvious and repeated example that is being used is
the relative cost of intrastate airline travel (such as in Texas or
California) compared to equivalent distances traveled in inter-state
-17-
airline routes where the cóst is almost doubled because of the rulings
of Federal regulatory agencies on inter-state transportation. Another
very serious concern would be in the charge for electricity by powe
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
companies--say, electric power membership corporations. In some areas,
because the power is transported across the state line, the Federal Power
Commission has authorized wholesale rates to, say, the electric membership
corporations or to cities or to other entities that actually exceed the
retail level or power costs or charges approved by state regulatory agencies.
This is a great concern to me and I think it is the kind of abuse that
should be corrected. So, to summarize: in the economic regulation, I
think we need to move very drastically to increase competition and to re-
move the protection to the industries themselves and the area of protecting
human beings against damage from chemicals. Evironmental problems
I
think this is an area where regulatory agencies might be strengthened.
CONLAN: A question has support from enviornmentalists and energy forces
but has opposition from organized labor, or some segments of organized
labor: Would you favor a nationwide ban, or prohibitive tax, on throw-
away beverage containers?
CARTER: I don't know. I haven't information to know whether I would favor
it or not. I don't know how it has worked in Oregon. I know it has been
tried there. The former Governor of Oregon thinks it worked very well, but,
at this time, I would not favor a nationwide law on that subject. But I
would reserve the right to change my mind in the future if evidence is
presented to me that it might be advisable. So that's a question Ican't
answer.
ELLIOTT: You said, Governor, that you oppose opening up of government
knowledge of how to enrich uranium to private industries. Last week the House
-18-
passed a bill that would allow private industry entering uranium enrich-
ment backed by eight billion dollars in government loan guarantees. Now,
if a particular contract between the private companies and the government
doesn't reach the White House until January, when you are there, would you
veto those contracts?
CARTER: I hate to say this far ahead of time, when I am still a nominee
and not a President-elect, what I will do about specific legislation whose
form I don't know and which I have never seen. I don't think it is a matter
of the private industries knowing about the process, because quite often
they have performed the process themselves under direct contract with the
government. This was the case at Hampton Works by DuPont; by G.E. in Knolls
Atomic Pile Laboratory, for instance, and at Westinghouse and at other
places in Pittsburgh. So, it is not a matter of whether or not private
industry knows about the process--secrecy is not a part of the problem. I
personally believe that, if the Federal government is going to turn over
to private industry the enrichment responsibility itself and has to guar-
antee a certain amount of profit as a prerequisite to the industry assuming
that responsibility, that this would probably work to the disadvantage of
our people. I would rather see the same amount of money expended to expand
our present facilities-- if expansion is needed.
ELLIOTT: Does that mean you would veto a particular contract allowing
private companies to enrich uranium?
CARTER: I still can't answer your question, because I don't know if the
legislation would call for the President to have the authority to veto a
contract. That may be a responsibility assigned to ERDA to pursue it. I
would be under an oath to enforce the law, as it existed at any one partic-
ular moment; and--if the law required it--this contract arrangement would
be pursued, of course, in spite of my own aversion to doing it. I would
-19-
have to comply with the law. But, I have expressed to you my
ELLIOTT: If given a chance, you'd be opposed to it?
CARTER: That's right. But I can't promise you that I would veto a
specific contract if the law had already been passed authorizing the
contract to be let.
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
MINTZ: Mr. Carter, more than thousands of Americans die of cancer every
day. The American Cancer Foundation stated 90% of the cases were caused
by environmental factors including chemicals in the workplace and in the
air, drinking water, food and drugs bought. The Senate subcommittee bill
would require screening of all widely-used chemicals to determine if they
may cause cancers in humans. Do you have a position on this, sir?
CARTER: Well, I'm against cancer. (laughter) I've seen in my travels
around the country some of the problems and also some of the results of
corrective action. I was in a plant, for instance (I believe, in New
Hampshire) that processed asbestos. The manager of the plant was complain-
ing very aggressively about OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administrat-
ion) and how OSHA people had come in to "disturb" his plant. Later in his
conversation, as I went through the plant, some of the employees said that
two years ago you couldn't see from one end of the plant to the other,"
because of the asbestos in the air; and that was all cleaned up and the
plant manager was very proud of this change. I asked him what made him
change his mind? He replied, "The OSHA people required us to do it."
(laughter) So...I am concerned about this problem; I think this involves
a wide range of problems. One of them is insecticides and other chemicals
which are sprayed. Obviously, others involve the content of medecines and
foods that are consumed by persons; another one would involve the enforcement
of air quality standards. Another would be the improper control or testing
which would result in
-20-
some inadvertent poisoning of people. One of things I do favor, regard-
less of who does The preliminary test, is the complete revelation of the
results of tests--of chemical or medecines before they are put on the
market. I think this can be done without revealing trade secrets about
the exact formulae that would comprise a new product. But, at the present
time, when this testing is done either in public or private laboratories
or by the company itself, there is no requirement that these tests be made
public. If they were, I think that interested scientists (maybe scientists
who would be involved with the consumer groups who are represented here)
could publicize the possible dangers. So I do favor corrective action
in this field and would do all I could as President to pursue it.
MINTZ: Governor, I asked the question because Congress has been hung up
for years on this issue that is, how can they pass a toxic substances
bill? The Senate has one and the House bill does not contain the pro-
vision I talked about. And I wanted to ask again whether you have any
views that you would like to convey to the people and to the Congress
on this particular issue of screening all widely-used chemicals to
determine that they may cause cancer in humans?
CARTER: Did I answer the question? I gave you the best answer I could.
MINTZ: Thank you.
SHANAHAN: Governor, there are a great many proposals for Federal legislation
to force corporations to be more law abiding, ranging from relatively small
charges like giving the outside directors control of the (inaudible)
Committee to comprehensive proposals like Ralph Nader's Federal Chartering
Bill. Which, if any, of these proposals do you favor?
CARTER: Well, I am not sure about the proposal for Federal chartering. My
own philosophical commitment would be to let the states do it if they can
or will. And, as a second alternative, to set minimum standards for charter-
-21-
ing, and then permit the state to comply, mandatorily, unless they want to
assume the Federal chartering requirements. There are some state chartering
provisions that obviously are too low and permissive, like the ones in
Delaware. I think it was Mr. Nader who pointed out to me that, for instance,
if General Motors wanted to sell their Buick Division, they would not even
have to seek the approval of their own stockholders; and that if a major
official in a corporation was convicted of a crime and was 'fined $10,000, the
corporation could pay the fine for that individual without approval of the
stockholders. So access of the stockholders to have a greater control of the
company is something that I would favor very strongly. Secondly, I believe
that there ought to be a reduction in the protection for criminals that is
not provided within the corporate structure. I see no reason for corporations
to give bribes in this country or in other countries. The recent proposal by
the Administration is that the companies, in effect, can go ahead and bribe
in foreign countries. They have to reveal the bribe to the Commerce Depart-
ment. It is kept secret for a year, and I understand revealed if there is
an assessment by the Secretary of Commerce or the President that a foreign
law was violated. The concept of confidential disclosure, to me, seems to
be a conflict in terms; and the concept of permissive criminality (laughter)
also seems to me to be a conflict in terms. I believe it is accurate to say
that every nation in the world has bribery defined as a crime, and I see no
reason why our own country should contribute to corporate crimes of any kind.
SHANAUAN: In talking about a 'Minimum Standards Bill" or any other approach,
do you have some thought as to what you would make a crime, other than
bribery, in terms of nonfulfillment of Federal laws, or anything else; and
how you would, and at what level within the corporation, make anything a
crime?
-22-
CARTER: I can't answer that question. Obviously a violation of the state or
Federal laws is, in itself, defined as a crime. And I think the punishment
should be commensurate with the degree of criminality or the harm that has
resulted from the commission of the crime. I would prefer to see heavy cor-
porate fines levied or perhaps 8 criminal penalty including incarceration for
leaders of the corporation or business who were peddling and proven to be
guilty, and this would include damage to persons' health or lives, or the sub-
version of the orderly structure of our society through bribery and other
means.
WHITTEN: Governor, in view of your forceful words about sweetheart deals
between the regulatory agencies and industry, and in view of the way commercial
time on TV has gobbled up so much program time, do you favor a drastic cut-
back in commercial time on TV, and will you appoint militant FCC Commission-
ers to try to cut back that time or propose needed legislative remedies?
CARTER: I can't answer the question about whether the present allocation
of time is adequate. I am not sure even what the requirement is -- I under-
stand it is about 30%. I don't know the answer. But, anyway, I will appoint
consumer or citizen advocates on the FCC and in other regulatory agencies as
well. One statement that I made about a year ago is that one of the goals
that I have for my own appointees is that they would be acceptable to
Ralph Nader. That doesn't mean that I am going to get his approval ahead of
time or consult him necessarily in every appointment, but the thrust of my
own commitment to appointments on regulatory agencies is to fulfill the orig-
inal concept which was that it would be a forum for the people and the pro-
tection of the people themselves.
WHITTEN: I would like to follow up on those questions.
CARTER: Please do.
WHITTEN: I would like to ask you -- you must watch TV as we do
CARTER: As a matter of fact, I do not watch television very much.
(Laughter and applause).
WHITTEN: My question has reference to the family. Do you believe there is
too much violence on TV -- Especially as it affects children?
CARTER: Yes, I do think there is too much violence on television. I think
that the President himself has certainly a right, even an obligation, to ex-
press to the public displeasure or criticism of programming content. That,
I believe as I said, is a right and a privilege and a duty. I believe this
would have a great influence to the extent the President was both forceful
and trusted to shape the opinion of viewers of television programs. And
if I should call on parents of this nation, or viewers, to express their
displeasure, or because of that encroachment on the consciences of their
children, of extreme violence, I think there would be a beneficial effect
there. I believe also that within the framework of the law, it would be appro-
priate to have members of the regulatory agency prescribe some standards. I
personally don't favor censorship as such, I think this offers a very fine
and subjective decision to be made between censorship on the one hand and
quality of content on the other. But even then I would tend to do things,
as I told you, through my own appointments on the regulatory agencies and
within the law try to improve the quality of programming, and secondly to
express my concern from the White House.
AUG: Mr. Carter, in connection with the FCC, I would like to ask you briefly
about competition in the telephone business. There is legislation, you know,
sponsored primarily by the telephone companies, both the Bell System and the
independents, which would in effect, drastically cut down, if not eliminate,
competition within the telephone industry, which has come about within the
-24-
past eight years or so, There is a good deal of controversy over this legisla-
tion. I wonder, first of all, whether you will favor continued competition
in the telephone industry? And secondly, whether you would favor the current
approach by the administration to break up the Bell System?
CARTER: I'm not qualified to answer your question; I'm not familiar with the
legislation that has been proposed. I do favor competition within the telephone
industry, I think that there are a couple of instances with which I am per-
sonally familiar as a businessman and as a candidate. And that is the right
of competitive companies to provide transportation systems within a motel or
hotel or large business or a very rapidly growing political campaign and so
forth. I think this is one area which should be preserved. This would
involve the within-building exchange system of the telephone sets themselves.
I think that this is a legitimate reason for a place for competition. I have
not observed myself, nor have I been presented with any proof that there is
too much competition within the com munication industry now. My own inclina-
tion now is to think that there is not enough competition. And I believe
that the proposal initiated by the President is proper. I don't know the details
of it, of course; it's in the hands of the courts or the Justice Department,
but I believe that it would be a good move in the right direction. And, at this
time, I don't believe that we need any corrective legislation as you have
described. But I've made all these statements without having studied the
bills; I haven't heard the debate on them and I'm not an attorney. I
haven't had anybody brief me on that subject.
CONLAN: Mr. Carter, the Democratic platform makes no specific commitment to
no-fault insurance, but I wonder if you could tell us if you would favor a
nationwide no fault law, or would you prefer to leave it to the states,
which seems to be the current administration's policy?
-25-
CARTER: I pursued aggressively as Governor, a comprehensive and effective and
complete no-fault law. We were not successful. We passed a no-fault law but
it was kind of a shell of what we wanted, what I personally wanted, My own
inclination would be to delay my full commitment to a Federal no-fault law
until after I was able to assess the relative efficacy of the 21 state pro-
grams that are presently in effect. One of the political circumstances that
prevail in our country (which I think is a good one) is that, under the
original Constitution, the Federal government was only given certain pre-
scribed authority. The states reserved the unassigned authority to themselves
and, as new problems have come up historically in our country, they have first
been faced at the state level. I believe that this is a good experiment
area. This occurred in the field of civil rights; it occurred in the field
of no-fault insurance; it occurred in the field of environmental quality,
and other ways. And I think the no-fault insurance concept is still in the
embryonic stage. I have no aversion to a Federal law that sets minimum
standards for no-fault, and I think it is going to pass. But, at this point,
I think I would need to assess the relative effectiveness of the no-fault
bills that have been passed. I have studied this extensively as Governor
of Georgia, particularly their bill in Massachusetts, which was the first
law, the one in Puerto Rico, and the Maryland bills. And our proposal was
based on the Maryland concept. So, ultimately, I think we need a comprehen-
sive and nationwide approach to no-fault. I think that Federal legislation
is inevitably going to come. I would like to reserve my commitment on that
until after I have the time and the authority to assess the relative advis-
ability of the different state tests that are now in progress.
ELLIOTT: Thus far, the country has spent three billion dollars developing
fast breeder reactor programs and a demonstration plant.
-26-
And the demonstration plant still hasn't been built! And
the people at ERDA tell me that the cost of that demonstration plant is
LIBRARY
going up a $100,000 per month, if it is ultimately built, each month that it
is delayed. Do you favor speeding up that program? Stopping it? Continuing
at the present dragging pace? What would you do?
CARTER: The liquid metal fast breeder reactor, in my opinion, is a substan-
tial waste of money in the way it is being conducted in our own country now.
There are working fast breeder reactors using liquid sodium both in France
and in England, And I think the test data that we hope to get from the plant
now being built in, I believe, Tennessee is doubtful at best. In the last
few years, as you know, the AEC, then, and the Congress, in the present, have
allocated a tremendous amount of our total research and development money to
the liquid metal fast breeder reactor itself. If atomic power does continue
in the future to be a major source of energy, then I think the breeder prin-
ciples must be pursued and understood. As you know, Canada uses natural
uranium only slightly enriched along with heavy water. We used natural or
light water along with highly enriched fuels. Another possibility in the future
is to use thorium -- but then a separate and distinct kind of breeder reaction
which does not require, I don't believe, liquid sodium. So, I think that the
amount of money that we are presently spending for liquid metal fast breeder
reactors should be drastically reduced. I think we should maximize our own
benefit to be derived from observing France and England's progress (they are
already at least as far along as we will be when we get the liquid metal fast breed
reactor completed) and that atomic power itself be relegated to the last
priority as far as energy sources are concerned. That we have an emphasis on
conservation, which we have not yet done; basically shift from oil to coal,
which I think we must do; and shift research and development funds a great deal
stronger toward solar energy. Did I answer? (applause)
-27-
NADER: Just a few questions from the audience. The time is getting short,
as you know. The question is from Beverly Moore, Jr., of the Class Action
Reports: "What is your position regarding expanding class action damage
suits by consumer and pollution victims as an alternative or supplement to
FORD
regulatory solutions?"
CARTER: One of the proposals that I favor is to let the state attorneys
general be authorized to file class action suits for people within their own
states. This is presently prohibited. I also would like to see legislation
passed to overthrow the Supreme Court rulings that in the past have blocked
consumer class action suits. As you know, there have been two very damaging
decisions made, both of which I think are not in the best interest of our
people. One says that you cannot file a class action suit unless your own
losses have been (I think) $10,000 or more; and the other one says that,
before you file a suit that is based on a class action principle, you must
notify every single person, which may be more than a million, that the suit
is being filed on their behalf. So, as a general principle, I favor the con-
cept of the class action suits, and those are three examples that come to mind
immediately. I am not an expert on the subject, but as Governor of Georgia,
in my own consumer protection proposals, these principles were included in my
requests from the legislature.
NADER: Ray Watts of the Senate Small Business Committee asks: "Present law
permits General Motors, for example, one of the two or three largest refrigerator
makers in the world, to keep secret its investment, sales, and profit in its
refrigerator division. Would you favor changing that law 30 as to require
public disclosure of large operations in particular industries of the multi-
national conglomerate corporations -that is, where they have several divisions
at various economic activities and they don't disclose them?"
CARTER: I think you all probably realize that I am not any better qualified to
answer these questions than you are, and perhaps there have been questions
asked that all of you can provide the answers to. I don't understand exactly
the problem of that particular question, since the price of refrigerators is not a
matter that is under the purview of regulatory agencies except the anti-trust
laws. I think, under the chartering provisions, that we discussed earlier, this
might very well be an avenue that could be used to reveal (at least to stockholders
which would then be an avenue for public knowledge, of how the different div-
isions within a corporation reports its profits. I was under the impression
that corporations already provided that kind of information. As far as requir-
ing the companies to reveal every aspect of that internal accounting data, I
think that is probably going too far; but, in a major division, like the manu-
facture of all home appliances, or say the Ford or Chrysler or Lincoln
profits as a division, I think that this is information that ought to be made
available to stockholders themselves. Ralph, you can probably follow up with
a question on that since I don't quite understand what the problem is, and am
not familiar with that debate.
NADER: The League of Women Voters asks you: "Do you envision any financial
aid or help for small farmers or family farms?" I assume that question is
asked in the context of the takeover of farms by large corporations in some
parts of the country.
CARTER: I think, as a farmer, the thing that the small family farmer needs most
is a long-range and predictable agricultural policy. It is obvious to me
that Secretary Butz has as his major background experience and as his major
interest the food processors and grain speculators and not the small family
farmer and the consumer, (Applause). I believe, in the long run, that
an FORD CLERARY
-29-
agricultural policy that does benefit the small family farmer is almost
invariably compatible with what is best for the consumers who don't live
on farms: maximum production; adequate reserve retention; price or base
supports that are roughly equivalent to production costs and don't guarantee
a profit; aggressive sale of American agricultural products overseas when
once our country's needs are met; and predictability. These are some as-
pects of agricultural policy, that some of which are presently absent. I
believe that financing has been a very serious problem. When I was campaign-
ing in Wisconsin, just to give you one quick set of statistics, I did a
great deal of research because we don't' have very many dairies left in
Georgia (they have all closed down). But I discovered, for instance, that
the average dairy farmer in Wisconsin has an investment in the farm and
equipment and COWS of $180,000. The average net profit per family off that
dairy farm is less than $7,000 a year. That includes the work that has been
performed by the farmer, the wife, and the children. This is a very, very
low return on that high an investment. If the farmer sold the farm and put
the $180,000 in a savings-and-loan institution at a 5% interest rate, they
could make $9,000 a year on interest, without working at all. Well, there
are real needs in agrículture, but I think one of the basic additional needs
that I would describe in closing my answer is that the facts about farming
and what our agricultural industry means to our nation's foreign trade, the
special problems of the agricultural community, and emphasis on Government
programs in support for the family farm itself and not the corporate farms,
and emphasis on the family farm and the consumer and not on grain speculators
and food processors. These changes, I think, would be advantageous to our
country.
NADER: Last question, because we are running out of time, from Susan Gross,
Counsel for Public Interest Law: "Do you favor authorizing federal agencies
to provide financial assistance to citizen groups such as consumer and en-
vironmental groups who wish to participate in agency proceedings, cannot
afford to do so, and can be deemed to represent important unrepresented
interests?"
CARTER: I hope that question came from the audience and not from,
TIRRARY Gyos
(Laughter). At this time, I don't favor that. I would first like to try
the Consumer Protection Agency as an advocacy group for consumers, and see
how well that works. And to see that, if that change and an understanding,
responsive attitude from the White House, and openness of government wouldn't
adequately solve the problem. The regulatory agencies' change in attitude
would be another factor. So, I would prefer to hold off on my approval of
providing direct financial aid to consumers individually or to private groups,
from Federal agencies, until after I see how well these other proposals,
cumulatively, can benefít the consumers of this country.
Let me say this, in closing Mr. Nader said this was the last question. I
will repeat in saying that I don't know all the answers. I have learned a lot
from your questions and from the materials that you have been very gracious
in submitting to me. I think it is very constructive for the nominee of the
major party to come and be subjected to this kind of open interrogation on some
very sensitive issues. Not having been a member of the Congress, and not
having been involved in the debates of its Committees, and not having heard much
of the testimony, I am not qualified to answer a lot of the questions, I
would like to ask you to do one more thing for me: If I am elected President,
then as the President of our country, I hope you will let me come back.
(Applause).
NADER: Thank you very much, Mr. Carter, for the generous time you have spent
with us today. Those of you who are interested in information as to how to
obtain a transcript of today's procedures may wish to call 659-9053,
Mr. Mike Horrocks. We look forward to the responses from Mr. Reagan and
President Ford, and will be sure to inform you if they are affirmative.
V.H.2.
Carter claims that the United States has "neg-
lected our natural allies like France, England,
Mexico and Japan.'
Madison, Wisconsin
Capital Times
March 25, 1976
"I should think it is shortsighted of us to deal
openly with Brezhnev and leaders of the Soviet
Union and refuse to understand and become acquainted
with leaders in a NATO country who are Communist.
I believe we should support strongly the demo-
cratic forces in Italy, but still we should not
close the doors to Communist leaders in Italy
for friendship with us. It may be that we would
be better off having an Italian Government that
might be compromised (sic) at least partially of
Communists tied in with the Western world rather
than driven into the Soviet orbit irrevocably."
Newsweek
May 10, 1976
(European Edition)
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
In reference to the election held in Italy, Carter
said: "We must respect the results of democratic
elections and the right of countries to make their
own free choice if we are to reamin faithful to
our own basic needs."
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
June 24, 1976
Carter told a French television interviewer he
doesn't believe France will go Communist. But he
said he's not going to tell the French how to
vote.
"I think the French people themselves believe that
communism could be a threat to justice and freedom,
and I believe the average feeling of the French tends
toward a more democratic government. But in any
event the French know how to vote, and I am not
going to tell them how to do it."
AP
July 13, 1976
ITALY
"I really believe that the situation in Italy is not as serious as it was a year ago
when Italy was on the verge of absolute, total bankruptcy and when many
people who were quite conservative and even leaders of some of the major
corporations felt that the Communists would do a better job of managing the
nation's affairs than the present leaders. I think the situation has improved.
I would certainly hate to see Italy go Communist. I think we ought to do
everything we can within reasonable and open bounds through NATO, through
our strengthening of the position of the more democratic leaders, to prevent it
if it becomes obvious that the present government is incapable
of leadership and the Communists are the choice of the people of Italy
then I don't think we ought to intervene militarily or by any sort of covert
means. That would include assassinations, for instance. I don't think
that would be right.
National Democratic Issues Conference
Louisville, Kentucky
November 23, 1975
CC
arber
BERALD LIGHTS
EUROPEAN COMMUNISTS
"I should think it is shortsighted of us to deal openly with Brezhnev and
leaders of the Soviet Union and refuse to understand and become acquainted
with leaders in a NATO country who are Communist. I believe we should
support strongly the democratic forces in Italy, but still we should not
close the doors to Communist leaders in Italy for friendship with us. It may
be that we would be better off having an Italian Government that might
be comprised at least partially of Communists tied in with the Western
world rather than driven into the Soviet orbit irrevocably. "
Newsweek
May 10, 1976
(European Edition)
/
Cc C arben
FORD LIBRARY is DERALE
La